Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

OPINION

Columnist: Sequoia Gateway project doesn't hold up to scrutiny

Karl Schoettler, Guest Columnist
Published 9:00 a.m. PT Feb. 28, 2019

CLOSE

You can have unlimited access to this work and help support the Times-Delta/Advance-Register in continuing its mission by becoming a subscriber. In doing so, you'll open your world to award-winning journalism and help support our democracy. Subscribe by visiting https://subscribe.visaliatimesdelta.com

Recently the Times-Delta ran an opinion piece by proponents of the Sequoia Gateway project (a major commercial development proposed in an agricultural area at Highway 99 and Caldwell Avenue) touting the environmental benefits of the project. Unfortunately, few of these “benefits” stand up to scrutiny.

The article states that the project will result in a reduction of water use by virtue of converting farmland to urban development. Using this argument then why don’t we pave over the entire valley with urban uses? Water use across the Valley would be reduced greatly. Also, if we are going down that road, such a reduction in water use could still be achieved on farmland much closer (or even inside) the existing Visalia city limits.

The article also praises “benefits” such as electric charging stations, solar panels, low water landscaping, bus stops, and bike paths, but these could be provided with any project, and bus stops and bike paths would be much more effective if the project was located in town, not out in the countryside miles away from where people live.

The article mentions all the property and sales tax revenues that will flow into local government coffers. Again, these would happen if the project were located inside the city and would probably be much more effective there, since police, fire, and other providers wouldn’t have to drive so far out to respond to emergencies and other service demands like trash pickup.

Despite all these supposed “environmental benefits”, the Environmental Impact Report states the project has the potential for numerous significant environmental impacts, including impacts on farmland, air pollution, endangered species, cultural resources, climate change, hazards, water quality, land use, noise, and traffic. Many of these impacts would not occur, or would be lessened greatly were the project built inside Visalia city limits.

Make no mistake, another result of this project is that it will open the door for development on hundreds of acres of farmland between Visalia and the Caldwell/99 site. All of these property owners will line up expecting similar treatment from the County or City of Visalia: “Why can’t I develop my land? You let them do it!”

I fear this project marks the first major instance of the County getting into the urban development “game." With the adoption of the recent County General Plan, the County has opened the door to urban development in locations that would have been intended for agriculture or open space in the past.

This is a major change from the past where official County policy directed urban development to the cities and unincorporated towns. Tulare County was once a recognized leader in cutting edge planning to protect farmland and strengthen communities, but this is apparently no longer the case.